Proof of essential contract terms required before enforcement; abatement delay was excused on sufficient cause.

Sufficient cause was accepted to set aside abatement and condone the delay in bringing the legal representative on record because the appellant, a pardanashin lady, had lost contact with Lyallpur and had no reliable knowledge of the death until informed through counsel. The suit nonetheless failed on the merits because the plaintiff did not prove the definite terms of the alleged oral contract: the design, make, size, price, and other essential particulars of the shirts were not established with the certainty required by law. The appeal succeeded, the lower appellate decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sufficient cause was shown to set aside the abatement and condone the delay in bringing the legal representative on record; (ii) whether the plaintiff proved the definite terms of the alleged oral contract so as to entitle him to a decree.

Issue (i): Whether sufficient cause was shown to set aside the abatement and condone the delay in bringing the legal representative on record.

Analysis: The application was made after the plaintiff-respondent had died, but the record showed that the appellant was a pardanashin lady, had lost touch with Lyallpur, and had no reliable knowledge of the death until informed through counsel. The Court accepted the explanation and treated the delay as satisfactorily accounted for.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established and the preliminary objection as to abatement was overruled.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved the definite terms of the alleged oral contract so as to entitle him to a decree.

Analysis: A suit to enforce a contract requires proof of its exact terms. The oral evidence did not establish the design, make, size, price, or other essential particulars of the shirts allegedly ordered, and the goods delivered were not shown to answer any proved description. The contract was therefore not proved with the certainty required by law.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove the foundation of the claim and was not entitled to any decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract cannot be enforced unless its essential terms are proved with sufficient certainty, and where the explanation for delay in bringing legal representatives on record is satisfactorily established, abatement may be set aside.

---